Proceedings of the Special
Senate Committee on the Arctic
Issue No. 23 - Evidence - March 20, 2019
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 20, 2019
The Special Committee on the Arctic met this day at 11:32 a.m. to consider the significant and rapid changes to the Arctic, and impacts on original inhabitants.
Senator Dennis Glen Patterson (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Special Senate Committee on the Arctic.
I’m Dennis Patterson, senator for Nunavut and privileged to be chair of this committee. Could I please ask senators around the table to introduce themselves, beginning with the deputy chair.
Senator Bovey: Patricia Bovey, Manitoba.
Senator Anderson: Margaret Dawn Anderson, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories.
Senator Duncan: Pat Duncan, Yukon.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Nova Scotia.
Senator Neufeld: Richard Neufeld, British Columbia.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Today, in our study on the significant and rapid changes to the Arctic and impacts on original inhabitants, for our first panel we welcome from the Arctic Institute of Community-Based Research Coral Voss, Executive Director, and Norma Kassi, Co-Founder and Director of Indigenous Collaboration.
If I’m not mistaken, we have two former Yukon MLAs with us today in Senator Duncan and Ms. Kassi.
Thank you both for joining us. I invite you to proceed with your opening statement, and we’ll go to a question and answer session.
Coral Voss, Executive Director, Arctic Institute of Community-Based Research: Thank you very much, chair, and honourable senators, good morning. I’d like to thank the committee for this invitation and an opportunity to join you today to discuss the Arctic, a place that I’m most privileged to call home.
I’m the executive director of the Arctic Institute of Community-Based Research in Whitehorse in the Yukon. With me is Norma Kassi, and I’m going to defer to her now for her introductions and to continue our opening statements.
Norma Kassi, Co-Founder and Director of Indigenous Collaboration, Arctic Institute of Community-Based Research: Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Thank you very much for this opportunity, honourable senators. I’d like to also acknowledge Minister Carolyn Bennett who initiated the Arctic policy and also my friend Mary Simon, as well, with all the work that was done on the Arctic policy.
Gwahatlati is my name, one who gives away their last cup of tea. I’m co-founder, as has been said. I’m also the Indigenous Leadership Initiative adviser and also I’m the co-director of the Canadian Mountain Network. I’m going to touch a little bit on each of those that we’re working on because each one of these is very important to the Arctic Policy Framework.
We started the organization of the Arctic Institute of Community-Based Research back in 2007 and looked at the health priorities within the Yukon Territory for community-based research. The main priorities that came out at the time were youth health and wellness, climate change, and food security strategies. Since then, we’ve been getting very strong Indigenous guidance from our elders in the Yukon territorial communities and their biggest concern is to prepare the youth for these challenging times that are coming.
We are in a good position to do some training of our youth and knowledge translation and mobilization with our youth and educate and train them in preparation for what’s coming around the areas of climate change, food and water security.
Since 2007, we’ve trained youth from Nunatsiavut, Yukon and Northwest Territories. What we do with them is we create ambassadors, climate change ambassadors, and we give them the tools to be able to go into the communities. We give them tools of research, how to do community-based research. We also teach them how to advocate when they go back to their communities.
We teach them by the way of medicine wheel, the Indigenous ways of teaching, the four elements of earth, air, fire and water, and what’s going on in all those sections of our Mother Earth. We give them a global context. Then we give them a national context and then also the effects on their communities from the global perspective.
We work with renowned scientists from across the country who come into these training sessions and give them the scientific perspective, and also we use the ancient wisdom of our elders in traditional Indigenous knowledge.
We also teach them how to do community assessments. We create community assessments with them and they do it themselves. They go into their communities and they ask those very hard questions about declining food species and what kinds of food strategies we will need to go forward.
I want to make mention of the Carcross/Tagish First Nations farm as well as the Tr’ondëk farm, the TH farm, that are very, very important for the Yukon’s food strategies looking forward.
Water species for long-term drinking water. We have the youth look at their communities in that context also, and preservation planning.
Also, fire is paramount in our teachings because most of our forest in the Yukon has now been eaten by spruce bark beetles. It’s very, very dry, and fires seem to be something we have to plan for. We teach them how to ask those hard questions of their people: Do we have a plan? Do we have a plan for evacuations? How are our evacuations going to be culturally sensitive? How is our community going to take care of these issues of FireSmarting and things like that within their community?
We also develop curriculum and tool kits so that these will be shared across Canada. This is their community assessment, so these will be shared across Canada, and also a curriculum that’s on the printer as we speak.
I want to take this opportunity, because I have to rush so fast, to thank the Polar Canada, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, and the Trudeau Foundation for assisting us since 2017 to do this kind of training. As an Indigenous Leadership Initiative adviser, I also want to thank the Government of Canada for the opportunities to engage collaboratively in moving that agenda forward to create these very important and much-needed land and water guardians across Canada to protect the lands that are put forward for Target 2020 and other Indigenous protected areas.
The $25 million is being used for a pilot project to create more guardians across Canada and for the kind of education these guardians will need into the future. These are the eyes and ears on the ground to protect our homelands. We see this as something very powerful which could be a part of reconciliation with Canada. We need many Indigenous land guardians across the country.
I also need to say a few words about the Canadian Mountain Network in the area of research and science that have worked collaboratively the last two years. We made an application to the NCE in collaboration with the University of Alberta and focused on science and Indigenous research working together.
We also worked toward, in the application, knowledge and mobilization from kindergarten to Grade 12 and we have three modes of research. The first research is for usual academic research and encouragement of working with Indigenous peoples. The second mode would be two-eyed seeing, where we work with academics and Indigenous peoples, and also we’re breaking ground on this one. We hope that the third mode of the research entity with the Canadian Mountain Network is the Indigenous-led research from the communities. We’re promoting research that is relevant to the communities and the outcomes will be action-oriented.
I would like to thank the Minister of Environment for her support. We look forward to working with Canada.
Another thing is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I have to speak about that. Our people bear the brunt of climate change. The accelerated speed at which climate change has hit our communities is unreal. But the biggest thing is our caribou. We have the last remaining and largest herd on earth, and our people have taken care of that herd for thousands of years. There are human remains of my people that date back to 27,000 years ago, and we have taken care of those caribou. We have the only herd left.
The U.S. government is going full bore now to open that national wildlife refuge in northeastern Alaska, and Canada has supported us for going on almost 30 years, assisting us to support no development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I would like to state and go on the record again that these are very important. This is going to be a detriment to the Arctic and particularly climate change, which will accelerate even more.
This is the only sacred place where life begins, where all these animals give birth. Polar bears and birds from all over the world come there, and my people’s life is on the line here. I would like to say to Canada that we absolutely have to put a stop to this in every way possible.
Thank you very much for this opportunity.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Ms. Voss, would you like to add some comments?
Ms. Voss: Yes, thank you. When I received this invitation, I struggled with what I wanted to say to the committee. Like Norma, it occurred to me that what I wanted to speak to you about is the amazing young people that we have who live in the Yukon, their fears and concerns for their future, but also the strength and the hopes that they bring.
We at the AICBR recently completed a second series of sessions for the Yukon Indigenous Community Climate Change Champions, or as we call it the YIC4 project, as a training session that was done over two years. It’s something that Norma touched on and it’s the toolkit which she showed you. I brought an extra couple of copies of it in case the committee would like to see them.
These help the youth to go back to the communities and start doing assessments on what they can do within their communities. Can we do solar? Can we do biomass? How do we do FireSmarting?
In the last session that we did, as part of the training, the youth met with leaders from within their communities, outside of their communities, scientists, FireSmarters and wildfire men who take care of the wildfires that hit the Yukon. The experts also spoke on food securities and they had many opportunities to discuss climate change amongst themselves and with us.
In addition, they were responsible for drafting a proposal that they would submit for funding, if they so desired, for something they saw in their community that they felt needed to be addressed. I brought in a few points that some of the youth had spoken about in these proposals.
Some of the impacts the youth are seeing in their communities range all the way from changes in the land, which includes plant and animal species and their populations; the climate, with drier summers which lead to much more devastating fires and warmer winters, but less water in the spring because we’re not getting as much snow; loss of food resources, either through new species incursion, habitat loss or severe population decreases and, in some regions, outright loss of specific species; loss of habitat through instability of biomes and loss of biodiversity; impacts of permafrost melting on buildings and road stability and physical changes to the land; food insecurity and reduced potable water.
On the other side of the equation, because of the hope that they bring us, they looked forward in many of their proposals for adaptations and mitigation strategies. They spoke to how to FireSmart their communities, to train the youth and community members not only in FireSmarting techniques but in simple things such as creating a go box in case you only have 15 minutes before a fire rages through. Green energy, whether it be solar, wind or biomass. Community recycling programs. Food-growing initiatives, including farms and hydroponic containers. Land-based camps for children and youth and land guardianship programs.
I just wanted to speak about the youth and what they brought to us at these training sessions. I thank you for listening.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Bovey: Thank you very much. What you’ve told us this morning is very impressive. It’s obviously relevant and practical, and I always applaud practical initiatives as we look forward and build on the roots that we have. I admire the collaborative approaches you’ve taken.
As you know, we’re looking at this Arctic framework and you’re well aware we’re following our work according to the six areas that the government itself is looking at.
Based on your experiences and learning, I have two questions. How do you take what you’ve learned and, from what you’ve said, the very positive experiences and let people across the country know? It seems to me that you’re certainly leaders in the scientific and community approaches, including youth and Indigenous knowledge and empirical science.
My other question is: What do you need us to include in our report to enable you to take your work and your leadership further?
Ms. Kassi: Thank you for that, senator. We’ve been called to present in various places across Canada and internationally a few times over the years. We present on what we deliver with the youth training and we also have a curriculum that is being developed right now, and the toolkit for communities to utilize which will be shared across Canada.
Our funding comes from the Climate Change and Health Adaptation Program. They have a webinar and all kinds of communications that go on that way. We do as much as we possibly can to make people aware of what we’re doing in the Yukon. People across Canada are asking us to come to their communities to share this knowledge and do as much work as we can.
What could help depends on the continued support by the Government of Canada to continue doing the types of work that is trying to be accomplished on the ground. We know that the Indigenous peoples in Canada are leading in climate change adaptation and mitigation in many areas through more green energy. We need those to be built upon.
We need food security strategies immediately done across our territories, which should come from dropping a pebble in the water kind of situation, from the community working out to the territory.
Also, we need to look at training firefighters. Yesterday the youth called for firefighters to be trained, at least 20 from each nation. We have six nations in Yukon Territory. Therefore, those kinds of things are immediate actions that we need to work together across governments to make happen.
Climate change is stuck in policy. We need to move. We need to take action, and we are taking these small steps, but when it comes to the community level, they’re quite big. They’re very important steps that we are taking. I hope I answered your question.
Senator Bovey: Ms. Voss, do you have anything you can add?
Ms. Voss: What do we need? I would think funding for youth initiatives would be exceedingly helpful. These youth that came up with these draft proposals. We can apply for a SSHRC grant, but where does a 20-year-old who’s not in university apply to? There’s not funding that’s outside of universities for a lot of the youth to take the leadership roles that they want to take and that we’re training them to take to start these initiatives, especially around green energies and on-the-land training for young people as well. It’s about funding those things that can be very costly, especially for smaller communities and fly-in communities like Old Crow. You want to be able to bring in scientists, but you also want the elders there. So you have to fly them into Old Crow and it’s a fly-in-only community. It gets very costly for the community to do have those initiatives on the ground. I think it’s also ways of creating funding that is outside of the normal academic settings.
Food security is a really big thing, as well. I know there are some initiatives going on at Yukon College with gardening initiatives and so on — I know because I’m looking into them for my own property — initiatives to create greenhouses, for communities to go in together and get one of the large hydroponic systems because they are half a million dollars. Maybe if we had funding that could pay for part of that and then two or three communities could come together and create a large hydroponic.
I think there’s room for different avenues for funding for some of the initiatives on the ground. I hope that answers your question.
The Chair: That Climate Change Health and Adaptation Program is funded by Indigenous Services Canada, I believe. I’m going to ask the page to pass around the toolkit you mentioned, Ms. Kassi, so we can just have a look as we’re going with our questions.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses, for your very thorough presentations.
The committee had the pleasure of travelling last year. We criss-crossed the Arctic and we saw a lot of things. We met in many different communities.
My question to you is: For AICBR, what are the biggest challenges that you are facing?
Another question is this. When we were travelling, probably one of the biggest concerns was about Internet, broadband, fibre optics and communication with the outside world. If you want to do research, you need to communicate with the outside world. How do you get the information out to grow economics and at the same time do all of this?
Ms. Voss: I can speak to the Internet — at least can I speak for myself. In Whitehorse we only have one provider, so it is very, very costly for us. I don’t know if there are economical ways of bringing those services into communities or having more providers that force that pricing to come down a little.
As to what AICBR needs, honestly, as the executive director, I can say that for us it’s core funding. We are a grant-driven, not-for-profit, so I spend half of my time writing grants to fund the agency. If there were funds that we could apply to, to have a core funding to ensure things move forward and we’re not running to catch the next grant, and what if we don’t get that grant, then we have to have that lag between grant times coming in. So the opportunities for core funding, at least as an executive director, would certainly ease some of the tension.
Ms. Kassi: Exactly what Coral has said. We’re a non-profit organization and we don’t have core funding, for sure. That would really help us to move and expand our curriculum and the tools that we’ve created to other communities. The Northwest Territories would like to talk to us; the Northern British Columbia Indigenous peoples want to talk to us. We can’t just jump in our car and go there, because we’re not funded.
Out of AICBR, we also created a mapping tool on our website. If you go to our website, www.aicbr.ca, you will see the map. If you click on one of the communities, you’ll see what’s going on in the area of climate change, training or anything that’s being done in various places throughout the Yukon. So we have that small tool.
We try to do our best to communicate as much as we can. Of course, we’re limited in resources.
Senator Oh: I saw the CBC interview this morning on television, that broadband is a big concern up there. I experienced it myself when I was up in the Arctic. I purchased something, a scarf for my wife, and it took a long time to get my Visa through.
I think to have the economy grow, you need to have better communication and broadband with the outside world.
Ms. Voss: I can speak to that very quickly. My partner and I just bought property about 25 minutes out of Whitehorse and getting the cost of the Internet out there is going to be quite substantial, but we also have to have a booster system put in to boost it up enough that we would actually be able to use the Internet. We’re only 25 minutes out of the city of Whitehorse. So I agree with you, it is a problem when even 20 minutes out and you’re having to be concerned.
Senator Eaton: I’m sorry I’m late. I was caught up somewhere else.
What interests me, from doing a bit of reading of your writings, is the food security issue. We faced that ourselves as a committee in Nain when we couldn’t get into Nain and had to go back to Kuujjuaq and we had to share a chicken between all of us. We realized how precarious your situation is.
We’ve heard testimony from people in Labrador that they’re having to teach the next generation how to hunt with dogs. In other words, they’ve lost a lot of Indigenous knowledge. I was wondering, does your younger generation have the knowledge and skills to provide food in the traditional way? If they do, would there be enough to sustain you?
Ms. Kassi: The issue is pretty much declining food species and it’s hard to get at. There’s no snow and ice left enough for us to access our traditional hunting areas at any time, whether with dog team or Ski-Doos, or however we may travel. It’s a huge hindrance. It causes a lot of issues within the community.
Food insecurity across our country, as you know, is rising. The cost of food is way too much. We’re a Nutrition North community, Old Crow. There’s only one in Yukon Territory, and it’s a good thing we have our caribou and we still have an abundance of moose in our region. My people have never ever engaged in any kind of selling of our traditional foods.
We’ve tried to do our very best to take care of what we have as long as we can. It’s always been like that. But our caribou, due to climate change and change of habitat, have not come to my community in the last five years. They have not come through my community or to the Northwest Territories.
Senator Eaton: Do you herd them like cattle, or do they —
Ms. Kassi: No, absolutely not, no. They are all free range, wild and have been there for thousands and thousands of years.
They calve in northeastern Alaska. Forty thousand calves are born there in June every year, and they make their trek and visit all our villages. There are approximately 12 villages that they go to and they feed our communities. Then they go back to their calving grounds. They’re heading back there now.
Yes, food insecurity is high. In the Yukon, communities have asked us to come in and do a food security strategy with their people. We go in and ask the hard questions to the elders. We research. We sit down with elders who are 80 years old, for example. They lived through times of famine in their lives. They worked with the ancient methods of sharing and all of that in their time. So we research them. Then we ask them the hard questions. How are your people going to survive into the future, given that we have climate change coming in at an accelerated rate? Things will change. Food will go down. People will go hungry, as they do around the world. We ask them those questions and they come up with strategies within their community.
First is to preserve and protect every species that is left as long as we possibly can. Make sure that we have good, clean water. Our fish are also being contaminated with mercury from permafrost melt. We need ongoing monitoring of that as well. They will plan their Indigenous food sources.
On the other hand, they also plan and talk about gardening. Some communities have never gardened in their lives; some have. In the southern part of the Yukon and in the Dawson area, we have some of the best soil. They create and prepare gardens.
We ask them the hard questions: What are you going to use to replace your caribou, moose and salmon? They say, well, we will have to learn husbandry. The Yukon is moving ahead in those areas.
The Tr’ondëk farm just got a half-million dollars to increase the farm and those funds were matched. They will service the Yukon and northern communities well. Then we have the southern farms like the Carcross/Tagish First Nation. Those communities have food security strategies.
Now the Yukon First Nations youth, in particular, are talking about a Yukon-wide Indigenous food strategy where all the communities and nations will help each other. That’s basically it. We have our own answers, right? Our people have been through this before.
Senator Eaton: You are using your traditional knowledge?
Ms. Kassi: Yes, we’re utilizing all the traditional knowledge. That’s what we do with community-based research; we draw that out from the elders and knowledgeable people. We put those into our recommendations.
Senator Eaton: We heard some very interesting testimony on Monday about the marriage between hard science, in terms of water testing, and traditional knowledge, dealing with the fish and the fish species. It was fascinating. It was nice to see them working together.
Ms. Kassi: Yes.
Senator Eaton: Regarding greenhouses, I think hydroponics is a wonderful idea. It seems like that is something that the government should see as a no-brainer. I guess what you lack up there is light, right? You could produce vegetables all year-round if you had enough power generation to keep the lights on long enough?
Ms. Kassi: Yes. In my community we have issues. We have 24 hours daylight in the summer.
Senator Eaton: I know, and nothing in the winter.
Ms. Kassi: Yes, we have a lot of light and sunshine. It’s heating up. What we don’t have is the soil. Mine is a permafrost community. We don’t have adequate soil like Burwash and the southern part of the Yukon as well. It’s composting and soil and those kinds of things that will be needed.
Senator Eaton: With hydroponics, you wouldn’t need soil.
Ms. Kassi: Yes, people are looking at hydroponics as well. I mean, that’s what we eat every day in restaurants — hydroponic vegetables. That’s definitely something people are looking at.
Senator Eaton: You were talking about the melting permafrost and the mercury seeping into the fish.
We saw some examples up North in housing and how to set a house’s foundation on permafrost. They are coming up with various solutions and codes. Is this something you’re dealing with, too, because it’s difficult to build a greenhouse?
Ms. Kassi: Most definitely, our permafrost is thawing at a very fast rate. I live in and grew up in North America’s second-biggest wetlands. Those big lakes are draining away. The banks are eroding. There go our fish, muskrats, beavers, ducks — they don’t go to those places anymore. Permafrost is melting and infrastructure is very, very —
Senator Eaton: Why are the lakes draining?
Ms. Kassi: Permafrost is melting. We live on vegetation about two or three feet high. Under that is ice, right? That ice underneath is now melting.
Senator Eaton: So it’s going down faster than —
Ms. Kassi: Yes, it’s melting pretty fast. Therefore the land is beginning to dry up more and more as these wetlands drain. With the lakes go our animal species.
We try to work in collaboration with scientists. I have the greatest opportunity now to push that agenda forward more so we can work in collaboration. We want to do research that is relevant to the communities, not just research that just “takes and leaves” anymore.
Senator Eaton: So it is relative to your culture?
Ms. Kassi: It is relative to our Indigenous knowledge, yes.
Senator Eaton: So you are working on building on permafrost now?
Ms. Kassi: Well, it’s pretty difficult to build on permafrost now.
Senator Eaton: Don’t the houses have springs? We saw various things.
Ms. Kassi: The communities are trying to do pylons that are movable. They’re experimenting with various ways. The best way would be to just forget about all the costly codes. It’s $400,000 to build a house in my village with two or three bedrooms. It’s extremely costly.
If we just have money to get a nice log home, build it on ground so it moves with the ground, like we used to before all those codes came in, then we would be fine. Tiny homes — absolutely, that’s what we need to do.
Senator Eaton: Who is giving you the codes? Where do they come from?
Ms. Kassi: I don’t know where they come from. Maybe it’s CMHC. It’s Canada’s housing codes.
Senator Eaton: I see. So you would have to get them changed to suit your situation. Is that something that’s going to happen? Is that something you’re trying to do?
Ms. Kassi: Well, yes. Canada’s working a lot in the area of permafrost research; so is our local college in the Yukon. They’re doing a lot of research in the Yukon for infrastructure and working with the communities to try and come up with better methods of dealing with it. It’s melting fast.
Senator Eaton: Not only that, but I see we’ve done housing in the past which was not culturally appropriate — badly built, mould, and all those things.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much, Ms. Kassi and Ms. Voss. It is really an honour to have you both with us. My colleague and I just returned on Saturday from the Yukon. She lives there and I was visiting there for the third time. It’s a beautiful, beautiful territory that you have.
Your work in community-based research is near and dear to me as one of the godmothers of the Indigenous Women in Community Leadership programs at Coady. I’m pleased that you are a co-promoter and supporter of that program. Thank you for that.
You have been involved in so many wonderful things over the years and therefore you have some accumulated wisdom from all of that experience. As a Senate committee, we have been listening to different people providing us different pieces of testimony. Right now we are grappling with this link between Indigenous traditional knowledge — wisdom, as you’ve called it, Ms. Kassi — and scientific knowledge. We are looking at research.
We had a witness from the University of the Arctic present to us earlier this week. One thing that started to percolate, in my mind at least — and you have further advanced it here — is the possible danger of isolating research from training, from education.
What I think I’m hearing from you is rather a cycle where there are places in that cycle for different kinds of inputs. Be it your community-based research work which you link with scientific knowledge holders; the training that you’re doing with young people — which isn’t a one-shot deal, it’s ongoing; working in the education system; and also linking research, training, education, and capacity building to action, which is something that is absolutely critical.
Could you speak to us a little bit about that? Maybe I’m not representing it as clearly as you might or in the way you might. How does that work for you? As we look at this area of research, knowledge building, and as we try to bring not just the traditional knowledge together with the scientific, but really how that fits in the whole knowledge generation and dissemination system, how does that work with you, and how do you think we should be approaching it as we look at the Arctic Policy Framework?
Ms. Kassi: I think we are at a time and place on our planet where we basically have no time to waste in terms of the knowledge that we need to mobilize with our future generations. Indigenous peoples are saying now that we need to do our own research. We need to plan our own communities. We need to mobilize the Indigenous knowledge, that’s paramount. We need to revitalize our languages, because this knowledge is inside our languages. Therefore, the Indigenous peoples are now at a point where community-based research and Indigenous-led research are paramount in our way of doing things and moving forward with this planet the way it is.
We enjoy calling upon scientists that profess in various areas in assisting our knowledge and mobilization at the community level. We work with those scientists. We call them in and they work with us, and we work in partnership.
I’ll tell a story here. We did a food strategy in the Kluane First Nation. As we were asking those hard questions of their people, which I talked about earlier, we trained youth to be researchers, too. I make sure there are four youths, two male, two female at any time in every community, and they’re being trained.
We go into the community, we ask those questions, and then out of that we hear “our fish is getting too soft. There is something wrong with our fish. It tastes funny now. It’s not doing well. We need to have a research scientist come in and work with us.” Then we look for someone who would work in collaboration with us.
We bring the scientists in and that person works right along with us and the community every step of the way, and the youth are right there. The youth are the ones that collect the fish. They’re fishers. They go out and collect the fish for the researchers. They put them on the table and dissect it, and the scientists are there teaching them what is most important about the specimen, what is most important to take out of that fish for analysis.
Then we find the money to take those youths to the University of Waterloo and another university that we worked with next door. We bring them right into the labs, and they’re right there with the researcher and the scientist dissecting their own species of fish, and out comes the results at the other end.
The youths are standing there, and we found out the mercury levels in that specific specimen were lower than what we originally thought. The youths are so happy, and they brought good news back to their community. That’s how the youth are trained. That’s how we train them.
When you talk about the circle of us working together, I guess that’s where we are now. We need to do that.
There has been a lot of research in the past and scientific research that has done a lot of damage to our people, to the point of death. We have learned from that.
We need to go forward and work together. We need young people. We need the two-eyed seeing. We want the non-Aboriginal youth who live in our nations together to walk with us together, because we know our lands and our species from the bottom of our hearts. We have known them for thousands of years. We have a lot of knowledge to share and we can work together.
We’re hoping in the way of research now that no time is wasted, no money is wasted and we do research that is relevant to the survival of our people into the future.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much for that. That was very important for us to hear, the absolute immediacy and paramountcy of getting at the nugget of the issues which must be identified, and have been identified by the communities, led by the communities and carried out in a community-based manner, as I understand you.
Do you have a link with Yukon College, which will become Yukon University, and if so, how do you see the role of that institution, or other Arctic academic teaching and research entities, in the work you’re engaged in into the future?
Ms. Kassi: Well, we definitely have with the AICBR, our little non-profit organization, on our board of representatives, there is always a representative on our board from Yukon College. We work quite closely with the Yukon College at every level, and with Canadian Mountain Network as well.
It’s exciting. It’s something that’s exciting for the North and the Yukon Territory to have the Yukon College become a university. What that needs to be moulded to is relevancy of research for the North, and that’s where Indigenous peoples work together very closely.
We have Tosh Southwick, who is the Indigenous researcher there in the Yukon who tries to ensure that Indigenous peoples are very much a part of any research that takes place in the Yukon, as well.
We’re hoping that it’s going to become something that’s new, something that’s exciting and something that can move forward to address some of these issues that are quite pertinent for our knowledge now and going forward.
Senator Anderson: Thank you for your presentation. I just want to go to your issue regarding caribou. As Inuvialuk, caribou, or tuktu, play a vital role in our community, as well as for all Inuit across the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. I also know that the Vuntut Gwitchin in the Inuvik region are actively engaged in the protection of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the protection of the tuktu.
For us, too, the tuktu have and continue to be a vital link to who we are as Inuit, both culturally and traditionally, and have enabled us to survive as a self-determining Indigenous people as well. You spoke about the vital role of tuktu and its irrefutable connection to your people, history, culture, future and ultimate survival.
What support, in your opinion, is required to ensure no development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and to create awareness of this key issue?
Ms. Kassi: We’ve been at this for 28 years, fighting the U.S. administration as Vuntut Gwitchin. I’m very proud of the way our people have taken a lead on this and raised this awareness internationally.
A lot of the caribou herds, as you know, amongst both our nations have declined in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut and other areas in Canada. Internationally, we have raised the issue to a point where we have large support to support the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
However, we need a state-to-state discussion. We need the Prime Minister of Canada to discuss openly the preservation of the Arctic Refuge. This is the last area on earth with so much biodiversity that we have got to protect it. We cannot do this. This absolutely cannot happen.
If there’s a very true way and heart into protecting the sacred calving grounds, then we have to do that. We have to do that. We have to protect this. This is the last caribou herd and the last most biologically diverse area on this planet, and we have this in northeast Alaska. Unfortunately, it’s in America. However, our caribou don’t know any boundaries. They fed our people for thousands of years. They go back and forth, and we need to protect them.
We’re really hoping and praying that the administration changes the next time around — and I put this on record — so that we can move forward and try to protect this.
Footprints have been on Arctic Refuge before and those places have been damaged. I’ve been there and seen it. I walked on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the sacred calving grounds and the animals that I saw there and polar bears and birds of every kind that come there from all over the world. We don’t go there ever right in the heart of the calving grounds; we walk around it. It’s a very sacred place and it absolutely needs to be protected. Quyanainni very much for raising that question.
Senator Anderson: You spoke about Indigenous-led research. Within the North historically there’s been a lot of research done. We have all been party to that, and sometimes we never get feedback on it or there are no ethics that governs the research that takes place.
Can you talk a bit more about what you mean by Indigenous-led research within the Yukon, and is it done in conjunction with scientists, and also is there a link to ethics committees?
Ms. Kassi: Basically the community will call us in. We don’t go in as part of the OCAP principles — ownership, control, access and possession — that have been agreed to upon Indigenous peoples across Canada. We do not go into a community unless we’re invited. We don’t tread on their traditional territory unless we’re invited. That means their lands outside of their community even.
Would they say, “Norma can we work on this together?” They come to AICBR and say, “we would like to do a food strategy,” for example, or “we want to do research on our fish. We want to do some kind of research like that.”
Then we go into the community and we draw out the people with the knowledge in the community itself. Whatever arises out of that research that requires in-depth scientific research, then the community will choose which scientists they want to work with across Canada and who has a good reputation across Canada and work collaboratively together. We ensure during that research process that the youth are being trained, and they’re the ones who are actually doing the work.
We’re trying to work in that kind of area of research, where it’s community led. They come up with their own answers. They know their own homelands. It’s their information. All we do is gather it, or we educate and help assist to gather it, or they come up with their own people to gather that information. Basically it’s relevant and something they want to know about. They come up with their own answers. Therefore, capacity is built, and they can build upon what they’ve learned and initiate what needs to be done at the end and action is taken.
Senator Anderson: Quyanainni.
Ms. Kassi: Quyanainni.
Senator Neufeld: Thank you both for being here. I appreciate it very much. Could I ask both of you which part of the Yukon do you live in?
Ms. Voss: I live in Whitehorse and I will be moving out to an area called Grizzly Valley. It’s about 25 miles outside of Whitehorse.
Ms. Kassi: I have two feet in each community of my community in Old Crow and I live in Whitehorse.
Senator Neufeld: All right. I was interested when you said First Nations in British Columbia want to get together with you. Can you tell me which ones they are and what are the barriers to getting together with the First Nations in northern British Columbia? Understand, I lived for 20 years in Fort Nelson. I live in Fort St. John, so I’m relatively familiar with the north.
Ms. Kassi: Well, particularly in the area of youth training and food security strategies, we collaborate with Atlin, B.C. It’s a small community. It’s only an hour or so away from Whitehorse. Also, there is the Tahltan First Nation. It’s six hours away in northern British Columbia. Then there’s the Liard First Nations who are just over the B.C. border, in the Lower Post area.
We try to collaborate with them as much as possible, and any information that we come up with at the AICBR, we ensure that those communities also are aware of our outcomes as well on projects.
Senator Neufeld: Do you have any contact with the Treaty 8 First Nations in northern B.C.?
Ms. Kassi: Well, my job is to collaborate with them under the research network. I’m kind of stuck about talking about this because the minister has to announce the Canadian Mountain Network yet, and we’re here this week to speak with people. I can’t speak too much about that yet, because the minister hasn’t announced it yet.
In the research area, we’re trying to collaborate with a lot more Indigenous peoples in Western Canada.
Senator Neufeld: All right. That’s good.
Ms. Voss, you talked about funding. Is the only funding that comes to First Nations in the Yukon, is the funding just federal, or is there territorial funding or other funding that comes to the First Nations from different sources?
Ms. Voss: Do you mean the First Nations that would do research with us? Most of it is federal. I’m trying in my head to think of all our grants, but the best percentage is federal. Am I correct on that? I think it’s almost all federal. I think there are small pools. Certainly I’ve been having meetings with the Kluane Lake Research Station. We’re building bridges between some of the other research communities to also assess how you would secure funding elsewhere or between. I know that there are opportunities, like you mentioned the University of the Arctic. I’d have to go back in my files but by and large I think almost all of our funding is either through the federal government or through universities.
I was part of a project that was through First Nations University, but I think they got their funding through an NCE, if I’m not mistaken. I think most of it is federal.
I think the concern I have is the flexibility of it as well.
Ms. Kassi: We had the opportunity to have a PHAC grant, Public Health Agency of Canada, for about five years where we accelerated the work and education around food security and other health-related issues. That went aside, so pretty much the projects that we have been accessing are the Climate Change and Health Adaptation Program, and also the Climate Change Preparedness Program, and also Polar Canada and, further to that, the Trudeau Foundation.
Those are now coming to an end March 31 with those projects, and the AICBR is now working very diligently to work on a near grant, a CIHR grant. We are working on that application as well at this point in time.
Senator Neufeld: I know that there has been funding from U.S. foundations going into Atlin. That’s why I asked the question: Is there any out-of-country funding going into your communities?
Ms. Voss: We had a very small fund called Honor The Earth, which is an American grant. That was a very small one.
I’m trying to think of some of the others. They’re all Canadian foundations. I’ve been to meetings with the Gordon Foundation as well. I’m certain that that’s Canadian-based. But, no, the communities, by and large, to my understanding — I’ve only been with the AICBR for a year — since I’ve been there, there’s only been that one small one. As to what I’ve looked through since I’ve been there, there’s not been any large-scale funding from the U.S. Thank you.
Ms. Kassi: We do, however, work under the Indigenous Leadership Initiative to work towards Indigenous protected areas in Canada and also to work towards the development of land and water and Indigenous guardians. We work with philanthropists such as Pew Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, the International Boreal Conservation Campaign. Those are our partners in working towards creating more protected areas in Canada. They are also our partners in developing the Indigenous guardians for those protected areas, as well.
In direct funding, I have not heard of any in the Yukon as of yet. We are working, however, with the Ross River Dena Council which is on unceded territory. They have not engaged in a land claims settlement, so they are working with the Sahtu Region in the Northwest Territories to come together, with the Kaska and the Sahtu to come together and develop an Indigenous protected area. I sort of work with them, as well. We’re working towards that. It hasn’t happened as of yet, but they are standing by for those issues.
Senator Neufeld: Another question, you talked about log homes and the rules or regulations that come down from, I guess, Ottawa, that you have to deal with on your lands.
We’ve heard lots of things about housing in permafrost and those kinds of issues. I was interested when you said that log homes, and a lot smaller, are something that you think should be part of it. Is that something that you’ve presented to government? Is that something that we can help with?
Ottawa is a long way away from the Yukon, or even from where I live. Sometimes they have good knowledge, but sometimes there are things that they think can be spread across the country, but it’s different in different places.
I’m interested in the log home issue and how big those log homes would be. Is that something that you would really like to push for?
Ms. Voss: One that would be really important, as I said, my partner and I just purchased property and will be building a house, and we are required to build the house within five years because it is government land that we purchased.
We have a minimum requirement — because we only wanted to put a tiny house on it until we retire. The tiny house has to be 700 square feet. That’s a pretty big tiny house. We are thinking of a 400 square foot little tiny house for the weekends until we retired and then we’d probably build. Even our big house is going to be only 1,200 square feet, so they’re not large.
Setting those limits so high is really problematic in that, for us, it’s not worth it for us to build 400 square feet and then two years later build 1,000 square feet.
Senator Neufeld: That would be territorial?
Ms. Voss: I understand it’s territorial, and I don’t know what the federal regulations are, but one of the things that I think is that if we’re moving towards trying to have tiny homes and create that accessibility to tiny homes, we also have to, at some point, make those regulations match it.
As for log homes, we’re not building a log home, but we’re building a wood-framed home for the exact same reason. It’s more flexible. But we are also having a geologist come in and do a ground assessment for us to ensure that.
Ms. Kassi: Thank you for that question, senator. From my community’s perspective what has been happening is that we build these fancy lumber houses and they are plastic coated. They have to have plastic. Within three years, we have black mould in that and that house is contaminated. Nobody can live in it.
It’s climate change. We have all kinds of weather patterns that come and create all different kinds of weather, moisture and everything like that and unstable foundations.
Yes, if I was to say anything, here in Canada we need our people to come up with their own ways of building homes; log homes that breathe and can move around easily and adjust. A window, for God’s sake, costs $3,000. For a window that size — about four feet by three feet. It’s very, very expensive. It costs a lot of money to fly this stuff into our communities.
I grew up in a little log house with a dirt roof and grass on top and an outdoor toilet and I absolutely love that kind of living. I live in a 512-square-foot tiny home that we built and tried not to use plastic in it. However, that’s what’s happening in the communities. All these codes that you have to apply to that are not relevant to climatic changes at this point, nor are they cost-effective for our people.
If we can build our own log houses the way that we plan it, just the way that we want to, and then let that happen, I think we would be a lot better off.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Bovey, we’re a little bit over time and I’m sure you’ll bear that in mind.
Senator Bovey: I found this very interesting and it touches many nerves that we have picked up on in the last few months. I want to pick up on a comment of Senator Neufeld’s when he said that Ottawa is a long way from the Yukon.
With that in mind, rather than pose a question I’m going to ask for some more material, if I may. I am really intrigued, as Senator Anderson asked, about the ethics of Indigenous-led research and, flipping that, the ethics of empirical science-led research in conjunction with Indigenous research.
Have you any policy documents or process documents that you could share with us? To me, this is among the most interesting conversations we’ve had about the relationship of Indigenous knowledge and scientific knowledge.
My second question is for information, if you have it. You mentioned the need for state-to-state discussions regarding the preservation of the Arctic refuge. Have you got more documentation about the representations that have been made thus far? Are there issues that can come into our report about the need for the state-to-state discussions? Because most of our discussions have been within Canada, and I think you’ve touched on something that’s obviously of critical import.
As you say, we hear about fish, in another committee, not understanding the international boundaries and obviously caribou don’t either. This is something that’s far bigger than Canada’s coast-to-coast.
I wonder if you have some more background information that you could submit to the clerk so that it can become part of our background materials for this report.
Ms. Kassi: Basically, I don’t have any background information here, but definitely regarding the ethics part of research, we follow the OCAP principles that were developed by the Assembly of First Nations a few years ago. All, over 600 Indigenous governments across Canada or First Nations, have adopted those policies.
We are now also developing policies around research and how we do Indigenous-led research. That’s going to be coming through the Canadian Mountain Network as well. We’ll be working on that. Definitely, I will ensure that those are — we need to collaborate with Government of Canada in that development as well.
Senator Bovey: If you could. I appreciate that the research that’s coming through universities has to meet the SSHRC research ethics and standards. My question is: Where do those mesh, or are there spots where they don’t mesh? I want us to make sure we capture the big picture, as well as being aware of the details.
So, if you can get that to us —
Ms. Kassi: That’s a really good question. Pretty much the people at the community ground level know what they want. They know what they want to research. The protocols and ethics protocols they will create are based on their own community protocols. Other than that, I cannot answer much more about SSHRC. I don’t know much about them, but I know their policies —
Senator Bovey: We have got the SSHRC side, so that’s okay.
Ms. Kassi: Yes, you have that.
With respect to documents with the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Yukon Government Environment Department has a lot of that information first hand. Minister Pauline Frost is quite key to working also with the United States to protect this area and the rest of Canada. There are documents there as well. I will get a hold of Minister Frost and I will ensure that she passes on this information.
The Alaska Wilderness League in Washington, D.C., holds much of the information that’s also required for years now. There’s quite a data collection there. So that’s all available from there as well.
Senator Bovey: Thank you. I know we’re over time. I appreciate that.
The Chair: Thank you for providing us with that information. Thank you both for being witnesses. Obviously, it was of great interest to our committee.
Welcome back to the second portion of the meeting of the Special Senate Committee on the Arctic.
For this second segment, I’m pleased to welcome, as an individual, Artur Wilczynski. He’s now the Director General of the Communications Security Establishment, but you’re here as a former Canadian ambassador to Norway today. Thank you for joining us. We’re looking forward to your testimony and there will be some questions.
[Translation]
Artur Wilczynski, Director General, Communications Security Establishment and former Canadian Ambassador to Norway, as an individual: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m honoured to be here with you again. I’ll give my presentation in English, but I’d be happy to answer your questions in both official languages.
[English]
Honourable senators, I am very pleased to be here at the Special Committee on the Arctic and happy to share my perspectives and answer any questions you may have in my capacity as the former Canadian ambassador to Norway.
First, I would like to say that I am a southerner and I am an immigrant to our country. As such, it is important for me to acknowledge that speaking about the North, the Arctic and its peoples is a true privilege. When I served as the Canadian ambassador to Norway, speaking about these matters was central to my function. Yet, I was always aware that my voice did not and could not replace the many voices of the peoples of Canada’s North.
Prior to my appointment as ambassador, I visited the Arctic once to Iqaluit in 1997. While brief, the experience gave me a limited perspective on Northern life. I knew it was only a glimpse into what life was like and that I had much to learn.
Prior to my departure, I met with the Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, then-minister responsible for Canada’s Arctic Council chairmanship. It was an opportunity for me to listen to the priorities of an Arctic citizen, a minister and an Indigenous woman. Listening to Arctic voices, whether Canadian or Norwegian, and learning from them was important to me during my time as ambassador.
My first event after arriving in Norway was a committee meeting of the Arctic Council that focused on Arctic wildlife. At that meeting I had the opportunity to listen to a discussion about polar bear populations and hear the view of Inuits from Nunavut as they shared their experiences and spoke about the importance of traditional knowledge as a key consideration in policy-making and science.
The Canadian International Arctic Centre based at the embassy in Oslo was instrumental in facilitating my participation in these types of discussions. In my view, CIAC is a key public policy tool that enables missions to advance Canadian interests in Arctic foreign policy. It is an excellent means to collect best practices from across the circumpolar region to inform the development of Canadian Arctic policy.
Having a dedicated team of diplomats and locally engaged staff supported Canada’s participation in the Arctic Council and, by extension, each mission accredited to an Arctic Council member state. Having this tool in my view was indispensable. Also important was the relationship between CIAC and the circumpolar division at Global Affairs Canada.
With Norway as the host country for the Arctic Council Secretariat, CIAC’s expertise helped me, as the new ambassador, to navigate the complexity of Arctic issues, both domestic and international.
As an ambassador, I wanted to anchor policy and diplomatic discussions in the interests of the people of the North, a people-centred approach to Arctic foreign policy. We looked at political, economic and cultural issues through the lens of how they affected Northerners’ lives.
An overarching theme was rapid change in the Arctic. Climate change in particular affects every facet of life. Understanding Norwegian policies, ranging from limiting greenhouse gas emissions to how Norway managed its significant oil and gas industry, through the relationship that Norway had with its Indigenous Sami population, was a key goal of the mission. To have these conversations with Norwegians, it was important to explain the differences between Canada’s Arctic and Norway.
One of my team members in Oslo, Bjorn Petter Hernes, prepared a presentation to help illustrate the difference between Norway and Canada. First, a map of Canada appeared, and then an image of Norway, to scale and at latitude, would appear superimposed over that of Canada. The reaction from my Norwegian colleagues and interlocutors was always the same: They couldn’t help but laugh when they see how relatively small Norway is compared to Canada. It is about two-thirds the size of Baffin Island, just to give you a bit of scope and scale.
The combined image enabled me to speak about the fundamental differences between those two Arctic regions. They are very different — economies, populations, environments — yet Arctic peoples of both countries share a deep love of place and an identity anchored in the North.
Norway’s three most-northern counties have a population of approximately half a million or 10 per cent of Norway’s population. In Norway, there is one Indigenous people, the Sami, with a population of approximately 50,000, spread across the entire country.
Northern Norway tries to attract labour to meet demand. There’s actually a labour shortage. It is connected to high-speed Internet. I could use my cell phone anywhere on Norwegian territory. There are regular flights from Tromsø and Longyearbyen on Svalbard to Oslo and other hubs in Scandanavia. The region is a growing tourist magnet. Harbours all along Norway’s Arctic coast are open year-long and temperatures in winter would be envied, I think, by all folks who live here in Ottawa.
These are important differences between our Arctic regions and it’s important to acknowledge them when we’re talking about foreign policy, but there are important lessons we can draw from one another. We can show the realities of northern life. We can and do highlight the things that we do together.
One of the things that for me left a lasting impression was participating in the Emerging Leaders Program of Arctic Frontiers as a mentor. This program brought young people from around the world together to develop a shared vision for the future of the Arctic. What was particularly interesting was the bringing together of young scientists, climatologists, policy experts, but also young Indigenous leaders from Canada.
It was wonderful to see young women and men from Nunavut, Yukon, Saskatchewan and Quebec show leadership. To see young leaders from the Inuit, Gwitch’in and other Indigenous peoples take part was particularly gratifying. They brought their unique voices and experiences to an international audience. I believe everyone benefited from their participation. I know I learned a great deal from these young women and men, and I know that our Norwegian hosts did as well.
I was also honoured to moderate the first Arctic Arts Summit hosted in Norway. It was important to bring policy and arts agency voices together to share experiences on how we can preserve and promote the unique voices and cultural expressions of Arctic peoples.
The embassy facilitated discussions on equality rights, sharing Canada’s experiences with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission — something that was important in advancing a similar discussion among the Sami peoples in Norway.
Inuit students from Sivunikasvut visited Norway and met with Sami youth, performed at the official residence and at the Parliament of Norway.
The Gerry Cans brought their special brand of Northern rock and roll to Canada’s celebration of Oslo LGBT pride. Juno-award-winning artist Jeremy Dutcher also performed with friends from the Sami community and held a workshop on the challenges of being Indigenous and a member of the LGBT community.
The diversity of issues covered by the Embassy of Canada to Norway was significant, from discussions about art and culture, to the value of sealing and Indigenous languages, through truth and reconciliation, to satellite-receiving stations and broadband technologies. The embassy played an important role in highlighting Canadian experiences, making connections between people and business, and advancing the interests of the people of the Arctic.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you. I look forward to answering any questions that you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Wilczynski.
Senator Bovey: Thank you very much. You must have had a wonderful time in Norway. It’s certainly a country that’s endeared itself to me.
Our chair and I had the privilege of going to the Arctic Council meeting in Finland last September. About 15 years ago, I had the opportunity to be in Tromsø with the Holmen Island Sami festival of visual arts. That was in 2004.
Pulling some of these thoughts together, one of the issues at the Arctic Council was the issue of Indigenous languages. Obviously, that’s something that is important to us. I’m going to ask you to dig a bit deeper into your lessons learned from having lived there. I have a couple of lines of questioning.
I appreciate it’s not as complex as in Canada, but what did you learn about the teaching of the Sami language and the recovery of the Sami language or extending it into populations that may not have known it?
Second, with your work with the arts festival, and certainly with mine over the decades with the visual artists, what can we learn from the work of the visual artists to define some of the common or unique societal issues in the two countries? I’m going on the basis that visual arts are an international language.
Tying that into our report, for me this comes together in our theme of healthy communities. What are your lessons learned as a Canadian ambassador to Norway, dealing with some of the same issues that we’re tasked with dealing with now?
Mr. Wilczynski: Thank you very much, senator. Indeed, it was an honour to represent Canada there. It is a beautiful country and its complexity is one of the things that was a real learning opportunity for me, particularly the relationship between Norwegian society writ large and the Sami population.
You asked what I learned of the teaching of the Sami language. I learned that it is as big a challenge, if not bigger, in the context of Norway than it is in countries like Canada. Sami language is actually divided into three regional subgroups in Norway. They share a lot in terms of the common culture, but there are distinct dialects of Sami that are not necessarily understood by one another.
One of the tools the Norwegian government uses to promote Sami language is the public broadcaster. NRK does have Sami-language radio and programming. They encourage production in the various languages to make sure that people have access to that. Again, it is one of the fundamental challenges that the Sami people have in Norway.
Added to that complexity is that the Sami population crosses a number of international boundaries. They are in Finland, Sweden and Russia; Norway has the largest population. The diversity of policies in that space makes preservation of language and culture one of the challenging things.
The other thing that the Norwegian government had put in place in the context of Norway is the existence of the Sami Parliament. One of the key mandates of the Sami Parliament is linguistic and cultural influence. Working with the president of the Sami Parliament, Aili Keskitalo, it was important for me to understand those challenges and to again try, to the extent possible, to build bridges with similar communities in Canada and, in my public interactions, to highlight these areas of similar challenges between us.
In terms of your second question around what can we learn from visual artists in terms of common and unique aspects, all I can say is that there is a definite appetite for cultural expression and visual cultural interpretation in both countries.
Looking at things such as film and other types of visual arts are a means for better understanding. There is a universal language there which transcends particularity. One of the things that I know Norwegians, and particularly northern Norwegians, enjoy is sharing stories across the circumpolar region. There is a genuine appetite for that which I think contributes to healthy communities and builds a sense of shared identity in the circumpolar context.
Senator Bovey: I think you’re absolutely right about film and storytelling.
I just want to say, during our tour up North, I think we all helped the economy of the North because we all brought some of that visual art back in various forms. I think the sharing of culture is something that you’ve touched on, so thank you.
Mr. Wilczynski: I think the sharing of practices about how each community and country does that, in terms of a policy point of view and a governance point of view, is valuable as well. When we had people from Nunavut and the Northwest Territories come, from a policy point of view, it is to have those conversations and that’s why the Arctic Arts Summit that brought federal and territorial representatives there to hear about the unique challenges of creators in the North was a very worthwhile experience.
Senator Bovey: Thank you.
Senator Oh: Thank you for the excellent information. You have extensive knowledge of Norway and the country. What would you recommend for the Canadian government with the Arctic problems that we’re facing — permafrost, culture and all this? What are the top three you would recommend to the Canadian government that we can learn something about? Do we have enough funding? Are they funding more up north compared to our country here?
Mr. Wilczynski: It’s a very different context and that’s one of the things that’s important to understand. In a very small territory, which is accessible by road, by ship and by flight on a regular basis, the challenges around things like economic development and access to services is very different in Canada’s North from Norway’s Arctic region.
I think where we can benefit is from that exchange of experiences, a better understanding. I can’t, for example, say that we can copy Norway’s approach to transportation policy, because half a million people living in a relatively concentrated area have different transportation challenges than 150,000 people living over 4 million square kilometres. It’s very difficult to transpose one to the other.
The one thing that we can learn from Norway is in how the Norwegians have supported creative communities, dynamic communities, healthy communities, in place. They look at all the different aspects of life in the North and bear that in mind as they look at funding.
It’s interesting, one of the political discussions in Norway is that there is too much attention paid to the north. Some of the people in the south have that perspective.
There’s always an interesting tension in those kinds of discussions, but I think we have our unique challenges that are informed by the specificity of the experiences of the North, and particularly of Indigenous people in the North, but as long as we have an ongoing dialogue and we use those instruments, we can draw whatever lessons the communities themselves feel are most applicable in that context.
I’m sorry I can’t come up with a one, two and three, but it’s too different for me to be able to do that.
Senator Oh: That’s good to know. Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Wilczynski, you would be familiar with Norway’s Arctic policy. Is that something that Canada can learn from, would you say?
Mr. Wilczynski: Again, recognizing that the point of departure is fundamentally different, I do think that a structured approach to Arctic challenges is something that we can learn from. The integration of the range of issues which focus on the development of healthy communities, that look at economic development, sustainability, environmental challenges, education and high technology — all of these things in an integrated way are important.
The short answer is, yes, I do think that kind of structured approach is useful and, as a diplomat, I think that it’s not only about sharing our best practices with the world; it is about trying to draw lessons for Canada and for Canadians. Again, I think that, in the context of the Canadian North, it is at a community level that I think it’s really important to draw those lessons.
What is applicable for Yellowknife might be more applicable when learning lessons from Tromsø, but for Gjoe Haven or Pond Inlet, I’m not sure what communities in Norway would have the same kinds of experiences, demographics, isolation and climate issues that would enable us to draw the same kinds of lessons.
Senator Oh: I’m aware that the Norwegians are very advanced on oil exploration projects.
Mr. Wilczynski: Yes.
Senator Oh: Are they getting out from the Arctic?
Mr. Wilczynski: Yes, they have exploration in the Arctic. That’s one of the things that is important for Norwegian economic policy, the development of oil and gas resources into the Arctic region. It is controversial in that context. There are areas in Norway, for example off of the Lofoten Islands, where there is a moratorium, but it is an active public policy debate in Norway in terms of specific subregions, but they do drill in the High North.
Senator Bovey: I have a map in front of me. I’ll speak for myself. I have been very surprised throughout our testimonies to learn how much more about our Arctic Ocean the Russians and the Chinese know than perhaps what we know. Notice I’m putting the word “perhaps” in now.
Somebody I was talking to the other day when I was voicing concern about whether we know more about Russia said, of course, we’re further away from Russia than any of Russia’s other neighbours in the Arctic Ocean. Can you talk a bit about the international concerns of the Arctic Ocean who is doing what up there, and how are other people’s activities in the Arctic Ocean affecting the lives of Canadians in Canada’s Arctic?
Mr. Wilczynski: Senator, if you will allow me, if I can keep it more focused on my experience as Canada’s ambassador to Norway, because it’s really in that context that I’m able to speak.
I think that Norway, if I could say, had a very sophisticated and interesting approach to its neighbourhood, particularly when it came to Arctic Ocean issues. It is a neighbour and it has a geographic land border with Russia. It needs to manage everything from fisheries to cross-border issues with the Russians while being a NATO member state. It had a level of sophistication in managing that complexity.
Norway, for many years, had bilateral issues with China that it has tried to reconcile. In the context of the Arctic Council, lots of countries work, particularly with observer states, again, because many countries, including China and others have an interest in what happens in the North.
I think that it is appropriate to have diplomatic and other forms of engagement to understand and work in partnership, where appropriate, to manage that delicate ecosystem. One doesn’t have to be in the Arctic to affect the Arctic. There are a lot of conversations that are linked to climate change and mitigation measures that are relevant, because what happens in places like China effects, for example, black carbon deposits in the Arctic.
We have to look at the Arctic, yes, from a national sovereign point of view. We are a literal state. We have responsibilities and rights as a literal state, but we have to be mindful that many different actors at the global level affect what’s happening in the North. As long as we do so mindful of our and their international legal obligations, I think we can manage it in a manner that contributes to peaceful coexistence in the Arctic region.
Senator Bovey: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much, Mr. Wilczynski. You mentioned the Sami Parliament. I would like it if you would take a little bit of time to talk, first generally, how the Government of Norway interacts, consults and engages with the Indigenous Sami people of Norway on a whole variety of matters; and, more specifically, how does the Sami Parliament function, and is there something we can learn from both of those things?
Mr. Wilczynski: The Sami Parliament was created — I’m trying to remember exactly, it’s quite a few years ago — I think it was 1997. It was part of an apology process for the history of wrongs that took place between the forced assimilation policy that Norway had in place on its Sami population for many years.
Senator Coyle: It’s part of the reconciliation in that case.
Mr. Wilczynski: It’s set up again in the North, in Kautokeino I believe — no, Karasjok, sorry. I got my cities wrong. The representatives in the parliament are along, quite frankly, similar political lines as the national parliament. You do have the similar political parties that may or may not present themselves. There is a president of the parliament that’s like the speaker, but also has other responsibilities, that engages in dialogue with the Norwegian government on regular issues.
Part of the debate is whether or not the mandate of the Sami Parliament reflects the full range of issues that are of interest to Sami peoples.
Many would say it should go beyond what the Sami is responsible for. There are many issues that affect the Sami. For example, reindeer husbandry. I was here listening to the very moving testimony of our colleagues from the Arctic Institute of Community-Based Research. There are similar kinds of questions around how the Norwegian government, for example, manages reindeer herds in the Far North and the effect they have on Sami populations.
There are issues around things such as mining and economic development that again are decided on by the national parliament that have an affect on Sami populations. But again, the relationship is different in that even in Norway’s High North, the Sami don’t necessarily constitute majority populations.
I mentioned the population of northern Norway is half a million people and the population of Sami is approximately 50,000. If all of them lived in those counties, and they don’t, it would only be about 10 per cent of that population.
How people identify as Sami is very complicated. It was one of the things that I learned about as part of the complexity of Norwegian society. For many years, people actually hid their Indigenousness or their Sami origins, and it is only recently that people are increasingly coming to identify with their Sami heritage.
I heard a number of quite moving stories about families where siblings don’t agree on their Indigenousness. One sibling might self-identify and another will not.
One of the very moving stories I heard was around a husband and wife who hid their respective Sami identity from one another. It was only later in life that they came to terms and acknowledged that.
The legacy of the forced assimilation policies is one that is enduring. It is why for me, as a Canadian ambassador, it was important to share our experience with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the calls to action.
What was interesting in speaking with many Sami was that while Norway had gone to apologize and try and reconcile — and there were significant efforts in that respect — the process of truth and reconciliation, of being able to tell your story and your experience and how it affected you, your family and your community, that that process is one that they were hopeful would still take place.
That’s a very long-winded answer in saying that it’s not the same; it’s complicated and multifaceted. The Sami Parliament I think is an interesting tool, but it doesn’t cover the full dynamic of the relationship between the Sami population and the government of Norway.
Senator Coyle: As you said, we in Canada can learn from others, just as others can learn from us and others again. If I understand it, you mentioned a sort of structured, integrated way of approaching the development of healthy communities in the Arctic, in Norway. Is there anything in that, not the result of it, but that general approach that you think could be helpful for Canada to learn from?
Mr. Wilczynski: Again, I do think the local approach, the community-by-community approach, is particularly useful. I’m not sure that a wholesale transfer of Norway’s experience to Canada is helpful, but it is to find similar, smaller communities, talking to Sami populations, and talking to coastal communities. There are very particular experiences that take place in these smaller communities that are important for us to bear in mind, not only in terms of relations with the Sami but generally smaller communities.
There is a lot we can learn, for example, from Norway in terms of coastal communities that might be applicable either in small town British Columbia or small town Newfoundland and Labrador that are useful, that look at health, Internet access, employment, the energy sector, the relationship between communities and larger businesses, aquaculture. All of these issues are integrated but are most appropriately lived and experienced I think at the local level and community level.
Senator Coyle: Renewables. We all know something about Norway and its oil and gas sector, which we know is an important engine for the country. Renewables. What is Norway doing in the renewable energy area?
Mr. Wilczynski: Norway has been way ahead of this for many years, simply because of their abundance of hydropower. Norway has been a hydroelectric power for many years. That is the primary source of energy in Norway, and they’re quite fortunate that way. Domestically they’re relatively, quite frankly, very low producers of greenhouse gas emissions because the communities are generally reliant on hydroelectricity.
Where I think it’s really interesting is the use of electric vehicles and other types of new technologies, the availability of those technologies, to see Teslas operate in Arctic Norway is not exceptional. Having access to those kinds of charging stations again is in the North, while less than the South, is not exceptional either.
Again, it’s a different historic context around energy sources in Norway.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
The Chair: You talked about the Sami people and the Parliament and the apology and some talk about reconciliation in your time. These are certainly the issues that are very much in the forefront in Canada. Reconciliation seems to be a priority of our current government and there is talk of a nation-to-nation relationship.
Would you be able to describe the differences in the approach to Indigenous peoples, comparing and contrasting between Canada and Norway? That may be a challenging question.
Mr. Wilczynski: It is a challenging question, because both sides of that equation are incredibly complex. To start with, again in its historic context, Sami peoples and Nordic Scandinavians have lived in a similar shared territory for hundreds if not a thousand years. How they developed and the relationship between them is a function of fairly complex European history and the specificity of that place.
Again, a fundamental difference is that the Sami are a single people that cross multiple national territories. That’s a particular reality that is different for many First Nations and Indigenous peoples in Canada, although not all, where there are hundreds of First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples in Canada, and their relationship with the Crown here is constitutional, legal, historic and based on treaties and different types of obligations that are not necessarily the same as Norway’s.
Again, I go back to one of the things I said earlier on. As a southerner and as an immigrant to Canada, I do find it difficult to speak about the nature of the relationship between Indigenous peoples and governments, because I come from a position of privilege and of power. The way I perceive and describe it might be fundamentally different from the way a Sami person describes it in terms of the experience in Norway, or a Gwich’in person will explain it from the perspective of a Northerner in Canada.
I don’t know if that gives you at least a flavour. I tried to answer your question to the best of my ability.
The Chair: Thank you. You mentioned oil and gas, of course, and that even in Norway it’s controversial, although there is a huge trust fund that probably is of great comfort to many Norwegians, I would think.
As you know, Canada has implemented a moratorium on oil and gas in the Arctic and you said there was a moratorium in certain locations in Norway.
Could you tell us a bit more about that controversy over oil and gas development? What are the concerns and what are the pros and cons? Maybe tell us a bit about the moratorium, too. Why was it applied and how extensive is that moratorium in Norway?
We’re going to have to wrestle with this issue in reviewing that moratorium here in Canada in two years.
Mr. Wilczynski: As a point of departure, I think there is a broad consensus in Norway that the oil and gas industry has been foundational to its current wealth and prosperity. There is an active discussion in the Norwegian political environment about how long a transition will be required to eventually move away from that industry.
In the meantime, I believe most Norwegians would argue that the way they extract oil and gas from the Norwegian continental shelf and the Arctic is as responsible as is possible and is something they will do for the foreseeable feature. Again, though, there is a conversation about how long that transition away from it will take place.
What’s interesting, again, is the pension fund that you speak of has had some media recently talking about divesting itself from investment in the oil and gas sector. The only reason I still follow Norway since my return is as a matter of interest.
This is purely a personal observation, but I find there is a level of irony there that the revenue generated from oil and gas extraction then still goes into a regime that invests in certain areas. That’s not stopping. But investment there onward into other oil and gas elements is something that the pension fund is apparently moving away from. Again, that’s part of the political conversation in Norway.
In terms of the region where there is a moratorium, it’s in a region called the Lofoten Islands in Arctic Norway. It is a chain of probably the most beautiful islands I have visited off of the west coast of Norway about three quarters of the way up, just south of Tromsø and north of Bodo in Norway. It’s in a fantastic archipelago.
It’s an important region where cod are fished and where cod also apparently come to spawn, so there’s a sensitivity to that particular region. The cod fishery in Norway is still a very significant and important economic driver. In terms of the environmental sensitivity of that area, local populations have been debating actively whether the benefits of additional drilling in that particularly sensitive area were worthwhile given the potential effect it could have on the cod stocks and, again, what is a spectacularly beautiful area and an increasingly important tourist area.
Again, there’s a live political debate, as there are with all things in Norway, about these issues. When I left in the last election there was a discussion about whether that should take place. As far as I’m aware, that might have changed. I recommend you check with my good friend Anne Kari Hansen Ovind, the Norwegian Ambassador to Canada, whether that’s still alive. My recollection is somewhat dated given I’ve been back for almost a year already. That’s my understanding of the debate, senator.
The Chair: Thank you. As far as the controversy over oil and gas is concerned in Norway, our current government justified the imposition of a moratorium — which really came from our Prime Minister as an initiative with President Obama — on the basis that drilling in the Arctic can’t be done safely.
In the controversy that you mentioned in Norway, is one of the issues the risk of drilling for oil and gas? Is that part of the debate in Norway? There is a lot of experience drilling in the Arctic, as you’ve said. Do people generally have confidence in the practices and regulations, or is the risk part of the controversy that you mentioned?
Mr. Wilczynski: Less so, if my recollection serves. The reason why, again, is environmental in that the waters off Norway’s Arctic coast are not like the waters in Canada’s Arctic coast. You don’t have issues around ice and icebergs. The waters right up to Tromsø are open all year long.
The way they look at their regulations is basically how far south from the southernmost ice areas are they allowed to drill, and that, quite frankly, is very far north. It’s well into the Arctic Circle. There are not the same kind of environmental challenges, though you still come up with issues around distance, cold water and icing sometimes in terms of vessels, but not the same kind of challenges as there would exist, for example, in our Arctic Ocean.
There are areas for collaboration in that space. Norwegian companies are particularly interested in working with partners in Newfoundland and Labrador. They see the offshore industry in Labrador as akin to the offshore industry in northern and Arctic Norway. Partnerships between Memorial University and companies in St. John’s with other companies in Norway are looking at how to manage the risk in terms of offshore in challenging climates, but it’s different if one looks at it exclusively in the Arctic context.
The Chair: I don’t see any more questions and we’re actually out of time now. I would like to thank you very much for taking the trouble to present to us and for sharing your experience, which seems to have been a very beneficial one for you. We’re grateful that you have shared that with us.
(The committee adjourned.)